President Obama will need evidence of intention.

I can see that this issue has some sensitivity to it and hastily defining the Fort Hood Shooting as an act of "domestic terrorism" might set a troublesome precedent but the law is quite clear here in the United States it reads like this.

18 U.S.C. § 2331 : US Code - Section 2331
~qoute
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
~endquote
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113B/2331

Section (A) and section (C) have clearly been violated ...so

So the only debate is left to the **intention** of the shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan and only he will truly know the intentions of his actions. We will be left to decide in his actions qualify as breaking the law stated above.

We know he will be tried in military courts not civilian. We know that he has ties and/or communications with known terrorists (Anwar al-Awlaki).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html

**There is no disputing that Major Hasan committed this atrocious act of senseless violence.

**There is no disputing these criminal acts occurred on US soil.

**There is no disputing that the crime was related to the US military and a soldiers deployment overseas in direct conflict with his Muslim faith.

The only section of the above stated law on domestic terrorism that is in need of any dispute is (B) intention; did he..
~intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; did he,

~intend to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or, did he,

~intend to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

****If he had any of these intentions then the horrible events at Fort Hood were plainly and simply "domestic terrorism"

We will be hopefully finding out his intentions more information becomes available but for now we wait and wonder how this all will play out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This United States citizen (me) is a bit concerned that if this was an act of domestic terrorism from within our own armed forces then to what greater extent has the reach of extremist Muslim Jihad seeded itself within the basic constructs of American society.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scariest of all...

Anwar al-Awlaki (the terrorist Maj. Hasan has had contact with) has endorsed this attack saying in a Nov 9th blog posting titled ....,

"Nidal Hasan did the right thing" ~~~ What?

al-Awlaki quote from the posting
"Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people...The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.”
~endqoute

http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/nefaawlakiforthoodshooting.pdf

And so we wait for Maj Hasan to speak.

A direct confession from the gentleman who did the shooting that it was an act of terrorism.

Act of terrorism?
Probably not - but no less extremely disturbing and incredibly sad.

Of course more information must be taken before we'll know the true depth of what happened, but from what I understand, the poor guy just snapped. It happens - the suicide rate in the military is extremely high. I just wish this guy hadn't taken so many of his brothers and sisters (unarmed) down with him.

I'm still terribly shocked that this happened; it's terribly sad that these folks are gone by the hand of one of their own.

This question was not really an honest question, now was it? What will it take for the individual asking this question to admit that this was nothing more than a fairly transparent effort to to make a biased comment and slight the President.

What happened at Ft. Hood was absolutely terrible and I look forward to the shooter getting his just deserts. Leave it to those on the right to immediately begin to demagogue the issue in an attempt to make political points from the death of soldiers.

Terrorism is often defined as a systematic use of terror as a means of coercion for political ends. This normally implies some sort of centralized planning and training], coupled with redundant levels of execution.

The tragedy at Fort Hood, terrifying and evil as it was, would probably not fit this definition. It, by all present indications, was the act of a lone individual, who may, or may not of had been influenced by external forces sympathetic to terrorist organizations.

The label of terrorism cannot be used across wide breadths, in so doing, the special classification of evil that we apply to the term, and the force which is rightfully used to rationalize the strong response to it, would be watered down as well.

If the evil event at Fort Hood were to be linked directly, either by evidence of planning or logistical support, to a known terrorist organization, then and only then should it be classified as an act of terrorism.

If not, then this matter should be handled by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and this individual, court martialed, and sentenced to death. I do not know if firing squads are still permissible in such situations, but by whatever means, if anyone deserves that ultimate demise, the perpetrator of that evil act definitely does.

He is a traitor and a murderer, most likely not a terrorist.

Do you understand the definition of the word "terror?"

I take issue with the way this question was biasedly asked.

On a very personal level, I think buddawiggi answered all the questions except the shooter's motivations and since he is a trained psychiatrist with an American attorney, I think the chances of ever getting a straight answer about his motivations are slim and or none.

I also do not want this man declared to be a terrorist. By the way the American courts have handled terrorism suspects and the confines of the Geneva Convention, if we declare him an enemy combatant (which would make him a spy for wearing a US military uniform), he would be provided additional protections that might prevent him from ever facing the consequences of his actions.

Instead, I would prefer to see him tried as a traitor and with all the dozens of charges that can be heaped upon in a military court. I would also like to see him tried in Texas where they actually put convicted murderers to death--rather than a federal court system where he can be sentenced to a nice stay in a federal prison where he can read the Qu'ran and fellowship with people of similar beliefs.

For the president to hastily proclaim that Fort Hood was an act of terror would be a disaster, at best. What happened was a tragedy, no doubt. However, the details are still pouring in. I think once police have spoken to eyewitnesses and once more information about the motive behind these shootings is revealed, authorities will be better equipped to say whether or not this is an act of terror.

Lastly, the president doesn't do these interrogations himself. It's the responsibility of police and detectives to determine what motivated this horrendous crime. Then, once the president has word from those people, he can speak about whether this was a terrorist act.

If the president called this an act of terror right off the bat and it wasn't the case, a lot of unneeded fear would be created.

The best evidence will be the poll that tells him it is in his best interest to link Fort Hood with terrorism. That's it.